On Friedrich Nietzsche's The Gay Science (1882, with book 5 added 1887).

What is wisdom? Nietzsche gives us an updated take on the Socratic project of challenging your most deeply held beliefs. Challenge not just your belief in God ("God is dead!") but uncover all your habits of thinking in terms of the divine. Question the motives behind relentless inquiry: the "will to truth." Realize how little of your life is actually a matter of conscious reflection, and the consequent limits on self-knowledge. The very act of systematization in philosophy overestimates what we can know; instead, we need a "gay" (in the sense of cheerful, carefree, and subversive) science (in the sense of organized knowledge; this is not about modern experimental science) that chases after fleeting insights and is able to question, i.e. laugh at, the pretensions of its own activity. This is the position from which one can then artistically create one's own character and one's values, and this "creation" is not whimsical in the sense of arbitrary, but is a matter of rigorous and careful discernment, an exercise of one's "intellectual conscience." Hear Mark, Wes, and Dylan frolic through this field of aphorisms and short essays.

Awesome episode and discussion.
It’s amazing listening to this, and it has been awhile since I read The Gay Science or the Joyful Wisdom, Die fröhliche Wissenschaft (frolic/frolicking is a cognate with frolich)http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/frolic
how I don’t know, how rhizomatic Nietzsche and this work is to so much that has been in the podcasts and blog posts.

Of course Heraclitus, Heidegger, zen, Deleuze and Guattari came to mind, but also Bruce Lee.

The eternal return I always think of Tim McGraw – Live Like You Were Dying
“Like tomorrow was a gift,
And you got eternity,
To think about what you’d do with it.”

“Like everyone else, you want to learn ‘The way to win.’ But never to accept ‘The way to lose.’ To accept defeat, to learn to die, is to be liberated from it. So when tomorrow comes, you must free your ambitious mind and learn ‘The Art of Dying.’”

“In Science we have finally come back to the pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus, who said everything is flow, flux, process. There are no “things.” NOTHINGNESS in Eastern language is “no-thingness”. We in the West think of nothingness as a void, an emptiness, a nonexistence. In Eastern philosophy and modern physical science, nothingness — no-thingness — is a form of process, ever moving.”
– Bruce Lee

“The meaning of life is that it is to be lived, and it is not to be traded and conceptualized and squeezed into a pattern of systems.” – Bruce Lee

“Life is better lived than conceptualized.” – Bruce Lee

“Truth has no path. Truth is living and, therefore, changing.” – Bruce Lee

“The man who is really serious, with the urge to find out what truth is, has no style at all. He lives only in what is.” – Bruce Lee

I listened to this late Monday night.
I’ve been in a great mood all of Tuesday.
The jury is still out over liability but I think that my testimony regarding how much so many
of these ideas resonated with me should sway them.
Excellent discussion.
Thank you(s).

I have two questions about Nietzsche’s claim about living dangerously and how a certain group of people will be able to live this way, perhaps in the future. Do you think that people living in the post-industrial world are in some respects inheritors of this view? I mean something like the high penchant for individualism, the search for meaning apart from religion, the appeal of libertarian ideals, and so on.

And the next question I would have mainly for Wes: Do you find something sad psychologically about Nietzsche? Here’s a guy encouraging people to live dangerously, but he is in all likelihood quite normal, only just kind of quietly (through writing) raging against the machine. Plus, he talks about the new man having a taste for higher airs, which I’m sure is a metaphor, but also reminds me of the fact that Nietzsche himself seemed to have some kind of respiratory problem that made him prefer (literally) higher altitudes. How would you diagnose him?

Hi Billie — I think Nietzsche saw his writing as the height of gay science and “living dangerously”; I think when Nietzsche talks of danger and heroism, he’s think of spiritual and intellectual danger and heroism. He’s not calling for us to become actual “robbers and conquerors,” or to return to being the “blond beasts” he describes in Genealogy. Rather, he’s asking us to incorporate heroic values into the life of the mind. Notice that his passages on heroic values often directly lead us back to just this: ” Be robbers and conquerors as long as you cannot be rulers and possessors, you seekers of knowledge!”

things seem to get a little off track when Nietzsche’s take on love (eros not agape?) got turned into a kind of more rational-self-improvement imperative and I think lost the vital (pardon the pun) and even uncanny aspect of un-conscious-ness in that we fall into love (are possessed by loves/desires) and than can come to cultivate/appreciate such chthonic aspects of life, here I think he is close to Freud (yes I know that Freud read Nietzsche as did Jung) on the matters of sublimation and creative/artistic genius, not so
democratic/inclusive/cosmopolitan as some like Dewey are.

FN is largely against tightassed puritanism and so being deadly-serious (or PC policing) would be anti-life, but being able to belly-laugh at yourself and at the other absurdities of life fits in my reading/writing of “gay” as enthusiastic.
Pema Chodron strikes me as someone who is working on a contemplative life with a warrior ethos and a sense of humor:

An excellent podcast due to excellent convergence on the material in addition to the usual entertaining characters. Here’s an example of one of the numerous points of convergence and development of significantly abstract concepts from Nietzsche’s “Gay Science” (I think joyful is a better term than gay or cheerful) (@minute 46):

Wes: “The Slave by being oppressed and having to look in upon himself and dissociate himself from what the Master is making him do gains a certain complexity and self consciousness that someone who’s just a Master, just in a position of power doesn’t have. ”

Mark:” In Genealogy in Essay 2 on Bad Conscience it is the inward turning of instincts that actually carves out inside us the space that we call soul or psyche and he uses that phrase “makes us interesting.” We do not become human until we become oppressed and the instincts have to go inward, or there is no force to create a mind to create a spirit.”

Where there are issues of divergence and difference among the group, the theme seems to focused on the question of what is Nietzsche’s ethic, what does he call good (correct ethic) or bad (bad ethic), and specifically, how do we categorize the psychopath?

I think one more Nietzsche podcast on “Beyond Good and Evil” should clear this up.

Nietzsche has spent a good amount of time clarifying the invalidity of slave morality, of guilt, of conscience, of God or self as arbiter. He is thoroughly pounding moralizing as establishing false truth, false value, false guilt, false conscience, false Gods of selves as arbiters, false masters, false slaves, all of which he dismisses under the label of “Good and Evil.”

This tendency shows up when we try to apply false judgments (moralizing) anywhere. Psychopaths can be bad, but not Evil. A person can be as powerful as Napoleon, but not Evil (though he may use this term sarcastically). There is no such thing as Evil, and the attempt to impose the concept of Evil is precisely what Nietzsche is railing against as the great illusion of mankind.

What then is a psychopath? Bad (not Evil). Who gets to ascribe bad? Individuals, but only out of their own discernment, not out of false moralizing, not appealing to some God (normative is not a good concept in Nietzsche’s project).

Yes, even the bad must be affirmed (even though it is bad), as in the case of the psychopath who does great harm, but who is a product of the human condition, who would be you or me if we had endured the same conditions. Good and Bad are good, but Evil is really bad (as a concept).

P.S. Thanks for illumination of the little known field of ethical philosophy know as fartology, or more formally as flatulentology 🙂

Dylan: Something about “searching for truth yet being comfortable in uncertainty.”

Wes: “The curtailment of instinct that comes with human society makes us sick.”

Mark: I can’t find the exact quote but it’s the idea that being in the master morality is somehow limiting; the slave morality is forced to adapt and think of new values, to create. I think it’s kind of similar to class struggle, the ones who rise up are the ones who see the system as broken. If you’re rich and living the best life, you have no incentive to change anything, and that can be very limiting.

Nietzsche’s rejection of guilt is problematic in the context of psychopathy; although, if guilt is contrasted/compared w/ empathy and or sympathy it is perhaps less problematic. Nietzsche’s guilt is a social construct. sympathy/empathy could be quantify/qualified neurotically, hence on some level(conceding all as construct too) is emotional and a sensation. psychopathy, in other words could largely being the result of the physical body; the intellectual game of philosophy thus excluding psychopaths and idiots alike. Philosophy is inert in the first place in this context due the body’s physical structure.
Nietzsche is exclusionary(admitting this him self i.e. the herd). Is not the psychopath unlike the herd with respect to inability? Could any given psychopath will them self into guilt/sympathy and the like?
In summery; null question!

If you take seriously the idea that each has their own path, which I do, then you can end up – like the Jungians I think – doing case studies. For the Jungians the unity is the collective unconscious, manifested through archetypes in the individual (I don’t find this convincing).

[…] a quick note to let you know you know that we are making available a transcript from the Gay Science episode. Special thanks to Jessica T. for her generous donation. The file was Professionally […]

[…] meantime. I’ll come back to it if I ever have a chance to treat it with a fine toothed comb. Take a listen. You can go here to find the full text of The Gay Science, which they’re discussing in […]

[…] space, time, causality, material objects, all of that. So being really, really smart is not (as for Nietzsche) just being a slightly less dumb and more pretentious animal, but almost of attaining godhood: […]

[…] recommend, by the way – and going through old Nietzsche episodes they had done. The episodes on The Gay Science and The Genealogy of Morals mentioned Nietzsche’s use of Apollo and Dionysius, and that’s […]

[…] the novel as an expression of “inverted Platonism.” The phrase is apt, not least because Friedrich Nietzsche once characterized his own thought in precisely these terms, and Moby-Dick is a proto-Nietzschean […]

[…] we're hearing D's actual view as opposed to one he's just playing out the implications of. Like Nietzsche, he certainly had a dim view of ordinariness, and saw the values as exhibited through status […]

About The Partially Examined Life

The Partially Examined Life is a philosophy podcast by some guys who were at one point set on doing philosophy for a living but then thought better of it. Each episode, we pick a text and chat about it with some balance between insight and flippancy. You don’t have to know any philosophy, or even to have read the text we’re talking about to (mostly) follow and (hopefully) enjoy the discussion

Become a PEL Citizen!

As a PEL Citizen, you’ll have access to a private social community of philosophers, thinkers, and other partial examiners where you can join or initiate discussion groups dedicated to particular readings, participate in lively forums, arrange online meet-ups for impromptu seminars, and more. PEL Citizens also have free access to podcast transcripts, guided readings, episode guides, PEL music, and other citizen-exclusive material. Click here to join.